The fall of a government does not establish the righteousness of its successors. Bangladesh’s political transition must be judged by whether citizens receive fair treatment, allegations withstand scrutiny, and those exercising authority remain accountable. These standards matter most when the desire to punish political opponents threatens to overwhelm the obligation to establish facts.

A report published by The Business Standard on October 31, 2026 provides a reason for concern. According to the report, police investigators concluded that medical documents submitted in an attempted-murder case against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and others were forged. They found no evidence supporting the complainant’s claimed gunshot injuries and recommended discharge. The court sought the complainant’s response; the investigative findings therefore did not constitute a final judicial exoneration.

That distinction must be preserved. Nevertheless, the reported findings raise a question: what verification occurred before such serious accusations entered the criminal justice system? An unsupported complaint can expose people to arrest, expense and reputational damage before its weaknesses receive judicial attention.

One disputed case cannot invalidate every allegation arising from the uprising. It does show why political accusations require the same evidentiary discipline as any other criminal complaint. Fabricated cases harm genuine victims by weakening public confidence in the institutions responsible for delivering justice.

Assessing Hasina’s Record

Hasina’s record requires similar care. Bangladesh achieved substantial development gains during her tenure. The World Bank’s 2025 Poverty and Equity Assessment found that moderate poverty declined from 37.1 percent in 2010 to 18.7 percent in 2022, while extreme poverty fell from 12.2 percent to 5.6 percent. The assessment also found that poverty reduction slowed after 2016 and economic growth became less inclusive.

Those findings support neither an unqualified celebration nor a wholesale dismissal of her administration. The achievements reflected citizens’ labor, enterprise and public policy. They deserve recognition, just as failures deserve examination. Political change should preserve useful policies and institutional capacity rather than make association with a predecessor grounds for rejection.

The argument that Bangladesh needed Hasina’s experience is defensible as a political judgment. Its strongest form also recognizes the need for democratic reform, institutional accountability and meaningful political inclusion. Development achievements cannot excuse abuses, but allegations of abuse cannot erase those achievements.

The suffering of protesters must remain central to any assessment. The United Nations Human Rights Office reported systematic repression during the 2024 protests and estimated that as many as 1,400 people may have been killed between July 1 and August 15. These findings demand credible investigation and fair proceedings, with individual responsibility established through evidence.

Problem With Political Immunity

The same scrutiny must extend to the administration that followed Hasina’s departure. Muhammad Yunus’s international reputation cannot exempt his government’s decisions from examination. The legal protections introduced for uprising participants are particularly consequential because they affect whether allegations of killing can reach a court.

Following approval by the Yunus-led Advisory Council, the July Mass Uprising (Protection and Liability Determination) Ordinance, 2026, was promulgated on January 25. An ordinance is legislation issued by the president under constitutional authority while Parliament is dissolved or not in session. This ordinance operated retrospectively from July 1, 2024, covering participation in the July–August uprising.

The ordinance was subsequently repealed and replaced by the corresponding Act, dated April 10, 2026. The current law retains the distinction at the center of the accountability debate.

Section 5 establishes a process through the National Human Rights Commission for investigating allegations of killing against uprising participants. If the commission finds criminal exploitation of disorder for narrow personal interests, it must submit a report to the competent court for further proceedings. If it classifies the alleged act as “political resistance,” however, section 5(3) bars court proceedings concerning that act, while allowing compensation for the affected family.

This distinction creates a serious risk: an alleged killing’s political purpose can determine whether criminal responsibility receives judicial examination. Protection against malicious prosecution is legitimate. A legal barrier that can prevent adjudication of an alleged unlawful killing deserves a different level of scrutiny.

Compensation may assist a bereaved family, but it cannot establish who was responsible or replace criminal proceedings where the evidence warrants them. The legislation does not prove that Yunus personally ordered killings. Its provisions nevertheless warrant criticism for potentially shielding acts classified as political resistance from prosecution.

Tarique Rahman’s Responsibility

Responsibility now extends beyond the interim administration that introduced the ordinance. The leadership that preserved its framework through parliamentary legislation must answer for its continuing operation.

Prime Minister Tarique Rahman and his government should support impartial investigations, act against demonstrably fabricated prosecutions and review provisions that can prevent judicial determination of responsibility for alleged unlawful killings. That review should protect peaceful participation while ensuring that political purpose does not excuse criminal violence.

Equal protection must reach citizens across party lines, including Awami League supporters. Recognizing Hasina’s achievements should not require defending proven abuses. Honoring protest victims should not require immunity for others accused of violence.

Bangladesh’s experience carries a wider lesson for South Asia: a transition’s democratic value depends on how power is exercised afterward. Governments earn trust when they permit scrutiny of their allies and protect the rights of their opponents. No political victory should place an unlawful killing beyond the reach of justice.

(The author is a lawyer in the Bangladesh Supreme Court and a political affairs analyst. The views expressed are personal. She can be contacted at  tasmiah.nuhiya.ahmed@gmail.com )